Allahabad High Court
Har Narayan Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others on 19 September, 2012
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21604 of 2007
Petitioner :- Har Narayan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Vidya Bhushan Srivastava,Ram Chandra Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,P.N. Dubey,R.N. Dubey,Vivek Mishra
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Shri W.H.Khan and Shri K.N.Tripathi, learned Senior Advocates for the petitioner and Shri K.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Respondent nos. 1 and 2 Shri Shiv Narayan Goswami and Sri Natthi Lal Goswami filed an application under Section-18 of Religious Endowments Act 1863 seeking permission for filing suit which was registered as Misc. Case no.149 of 2006 before the District Judge, Agra which was transferred for disposal to the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Agra.
Section 18 of the Act is quoted below:
18. Application for leave to institute suits- No suit shall be entertained under this Act without a preliminary application being first made to the Court for leave to institute such suit.
The court, on the perusal of the application, shall determine whether there are sufficient prima facie grounds for the institution of a suit, and, if in the judgment of the Court there are such grounds, leave shall be given for its institution.
Costs - Not relevant
The suit is filed under Section-14 of the Act after permission under Section-18 of the Act . First paragraph of Section-14 is quoted below:
14. Any person or persons interested in any mosque, temple or religious establishment, or in the performance of the worship or of the service thereof, or the trusts relating thereto, may, without joining as plaintiff any of the other persons interested therein, sue before the Civil Court the trustee, manager or superintendent of such mosque, temple or religious establishment or the member of any committee appointed under this Act, for any misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty, committed by such trustee, manager, superintendent or member of such committee, in respect of the trusts vested in, or confided to, them respectively.
In the instant case the prayer in the application under Section-18 of the Act, copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition was for grant of leave to institute a suit under Section-14 of the Act for preparing a scheme for better administration of the endowments by the Prabandh Samiti which may be registered as a trust under order of the court. The only opposite party in the application was Deputy Collector, Bah District Agra as receiver and Chairman of Managing Committee of temple of Shri Bateshwar Nath Ji at village Bateshwar, Pargana Bah District Agra.
Petitioner Har Narayan Singh claiming to be Secretary of Teerthsthal Bateshwar Trust Samiti filed impleadment application in the said cas (Civil Misc. Case No.149 of 2006). The learned Additional District Judge through order dated 15.1.2007 allowed the application, granted permission to institute the suit with the condition that all the necessary persons and Teerthsthal Bateshwar Trust Samiti should be made parties in the said application. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.
The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier similar suit without leave had been filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 which had been dismissed in default (of both the parties) and that no ground for permission to institute the suit had been made out.
Permission to institute suit granted under Section-18 of the Act does not decide anything finally. It is only primafacie satisfaction of the court that there is something which requires trial and decision under the Act. Section-18 itself uses the word primafacie.
On the suggestion of the court learned counsel for both the parties have agreed for the following order:
In the suit in question which has been filed (Original Suit no. 8 of 2007) under Section 14 Religious Endowments Act 1863 pursuant to the permission granted by the impugned order the effect of dismissal in default of the earlier suit i.e. Original Suit no.654 of 2003 shall be considered.
The effect of dismissal of Original Suit no.4 of 2000 shall also be considered.
The question whether the earlier suits or their dismissal orders are relevant or not shall be considered.
All the pleas which are available to the petitioner defendant in the suit in question and which are actually taken by the petitioner shall be considered by the court while deciding the suit finally. It is clarified that grant of permission under Section-18 of the Act does not mean that the court has finally decided anything in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 the persons who applied for the permission and who afterwards filed suit. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit which has been filed is beyond the permission which has been granted under Section-18 of the Act. Let this question be also considered while deciding the suit. Learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act is directed to decide the suit very expeditiously. Absolutely no un-necessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If any adjournment is granted it shall be on good cost. It is further clarified that if any plea is taken by the petitioner/defendant and in the opinion of the court below the same is not required to be decided then he shall give reasons for the same.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Both the parties are directed to appear before the court concerned on 10.10.2012 alongwith certified copy of this judgment.
Order Date :- 19.9.2012
RS
